Should World Marathon Majors change their membership? Are these 5 really the best?

The WMM concept is an utter failure. Anyone who says this was a successful venture is insane. These marathons don't help each other out, they don't cross-promote, they don't work together and they certainly don't utilize the WMM brand unless they have the leader of the series. Does anyone actually understand the point scoring, who's in the top five, or truly care who wins the series? No. I think it's about time the five marathons got together and call it a day with the ridiculous concept of WMM. It failed. Time to move on.

Can you elaborate on the aid given to runners on the Rotterdam course? I was not aware of this.

It is hard to argue that WMM is maximizing the brand but I still think it is valuable. WMM has created a bucketlist for thousands of marathoners out there, a lot of these runners from all over the world pay a lot of money to do all five in their lifetime. Also if you hang out at the right bar or whatever you will see the top agents, top shoe company people and top race promoters at each of these races, you can't say the same about other marathons.

Like I said I agree that the WMM brand is certainly not utilized to the maximum but I think it is a brand that has helped each of these races to a degree. Each of the races is going to take care of its own first and foremost but the partnership is still a good one.

Five marathons grouped together and called themselves "the majors". Doesn't that sound nice? It's all about publicity. Who declared them the major marathons of the world? They did. Sounds like something Donald Trump would do.

This way, these five marathons have a self-created way of feeling and publicizing themselves as superior to other marathons, like Fukuoka, Paris, Rotterdam. This is their belief no matter what runners compete in those other marathons or times get posted elsewhere.

It's all about publicity and to some extent it has worked. Could it be maximized a little better? Sure. Keep in mind though that these marathons compete with each other to pay the most prize money, have the best fields, etc ... So there won't always be full cooperation. Much like OPEC.

Right, if Boston and Berlin are included, then I'd say Rotterdam and Fukuoka along with a women-only race like Osaka should be included, too. Paris, Rome, and Tokyo should also be included. I think they could expand WMM to 9-10 marathons (9 annual plus WC or OG) and not really water it down much at all, maybe even improve the product.

Compared to London or Chicago or even NYC, Boston is watered down. Berlin is even more watered down, typically. WMM should institute both a cap and a floor for elite prize money and appearance fees.

Reliant Aries wrote:

Right, if Boston and Berlin are included, then I'd say Rotterdam and Fukuoka along with a women-only race like Osaka should be included, too. Paris, Rome, and Tokyo should also be included. I think they could expand WMM to 9-10 marathons (9 annual plus WC or OG) and not really water it down much at all, maybe even improve the product.

I'd add Houston for possible inclusion, too.

runn wrote:

I would like to see more races involved. But, the points system would have to be changed. Maybe to incorporate time (although I think racing should come before time).

I could see an overall bonus structure of time-for-place, with the standards determined by the individual races. Maybe leader-at-split primes, too. At the same time, I say toss out rabbits from all of these races.

The Stache wrote:

Can you elaborate on the aid given to runners on the Rotterdam course? I was not aware of this.

Basically the guys on motorcycles were able to give the runners water on demand, like what happens in cycling races. Towards the end, you saw Mutai raise his hand, and a motorcycle drove up and give him a bottle.

I think it's fine, as the only way to get faster will be to have the athletes be limited by what their body can do, and not be constrained by a missed bottle, or feed stations every 5km. Also safer from a heat management standpoint too. Wasn't a problem at Rotterdam, but I just rewatched the Beijing Marathon and the Berlin WC Marathon, and I was miserable for those guys (running in the heat).

The Stache wrote:

Does the WMM group really have the best marathons?

As another poster has already mentioned, there isn't some higher governing body that decides who has or hasn't met the criteria to be a member of the WMM. It is the WMM themselves that got together and decided to call themselves the WMM.

It is completely their prerogative if they want to ask someone else to join or if they want to maintain their own exclusivity, regardless of the quality and depth of any other marathon in the world.

I think Berlin should be dropped for Rotterdam unless they start making it a race rather than a time trial set up for one world record seeker. I hope they don't just have Wanjiru and a bunch of pacers this year.

LA marathon should be on the list. It's an awesome course and a lot of fast people would want to run it. It's perfect! anyone agree?

Directly from today's The Week That Was:

"This week, we break down arguably the fastest marathon in history and wonder why it's not considered a world marathon major, let you know how the 2010 Boston marathon is rapidly getting weaker in quality..."

and

"One last comment on Rotterdam. Can someone please tell us why this race isn't considered a World Marathon Major?"

Seems I'm not the only one to think this...or the BroJos stole my idea and didn't link the thread. I'll give the benefit of the doubt, though.

The Stache wrote:

"One last comment on Rotterdam. Can someone please tell us why this race isn't considered a World Marathon Major?"

Seems I'm not the only one to think this...or the BroJos stole my idea and didn't link the thread. I'll give the benefit of the doubt, though.

And apparently not the only one to miss the explanations that the WMM is a club formed by the WMM. There isn't some IAAF or IOC or whoever determining criteria for membership.

If the group wanted to, they could probably include the Topeka marathon in their little club and they certainly aren't obligated to anyone other than themselves to add any race should they not feel it is in their own best interests (ie it could detract from their particular product).

No shit, dude. I got that point. And I'm sure the BroJos know that all too well. But in all reality, if 4 decided that 1 was lagging, then the 4 could dump that 1 and go get another. Or they could all decide that they want Rotterdam in on this thing. That was the whole point of this thread. Not that some higher governing power should decide.

The concept of the World Marathon Majors will fall apart all together unless they figure out a way to take the next step they have been talking about since day 1. But they haven't and its gotten stale.

They need to expand the prize money to more other than just the winner. How about top 3 or top 5 at least. With just 1 person getting money, I think most top runners discount it all together.

To do this they need a title sponsor. Something they haven't been able to work out (despite trying from day 1) because each races own exclusive deals.

Next they need to re-examine the membership. Asia is not represented and its a hot bed of marathon interest and talent and emensly populated.

Unfortunately I think it would be easier to start a new running tour of races than try and get current races to be able to cooperate together and take this to the next level.

I commend the 5 current Marathon majors for the nice try but they have demonstrated they couldn't take it anywhere beyond the initial idea.

Another step in the right direction would be to cap the appearance fees to $10k per invited runner, and instead put the more serious money into prize money, time bonuses and drug testing.

I'd much rather watch guys race for a $300k first prize than hear about how XYZ got $125k to run it but dropped out at 15 miles well off the pace.

Professional road racing and marathons need to form a tour like is in Pro Golf. With only eligible pros allowed to compete and they have to follow certain rules are subject to uniform drug testing etc. All races on the tour have their own sponsors and set-up but have to follow tour guidelines. Their could be a several races each year at different distances where people could qualify for the tour for the following year. Current tour members would keep their tour card for another year if they do certain things.

The tour itself could then set up TV package deals and marketing, etc.

But currently we just try and loosely put together existing races, each with their iown agenda and it continues to fail time and again.

I'm not sure if we will ever smarten up or not. At least we have the Diamond League in Track.

Rotterdam is a good race, but I would like to promote Paris a little more for this thread.

These races were both on Sunday and both presented amazing fields. If you didn't notice, go to parismarathon.com and look at the invited field they brought in. Rotterdam did end up have some super fast times, but 10th at Paris was a minute or two faster than tenth at Rotterdam.

Paris does promote a special designation that the IAAF awards certain road races. This is separate from the WMM...the IAAF has nothing to do with that, I believe.

Paris also promotes the fact they have the most sub 3:00 hour finishers of ANY marathon. I cannot verify nor dispute that claim.

One poster mentioned that Paris may be week on the women's side. This is somewhat true when looking at the percent of males vs. females finishing. However as Brojos mentioned the 2:22:05 for first may stand up as the best time in the world this year.

Paris offers big money but I didn't hear anything about a particular type of charity.

It's good to have a race series like the WMM to determine the world's top marathoner, rather than have it all hinge on one WC race. The problem is, unlike say Formula 1 or tennis, you can't expect marathoners to race month after month. And the bigger the WMM club is, the more people will avoid the other 'big guns' and try to pick races where they're most likely to win points.

The solution is surely some sort of rating system for individual races - so 3rd in a stacked London could be worth as much as 1st in a one-horse Berlin, etc. You'd have to think a bit about the rating - say replace each race time by a percentage of course record, then sort all performances from the last three years and add up the rankings of your participants. Could be something like ELO ratings in chess, which nobody understands, but everyone knows what you mean when you say 'the Hastings tournament 1988 had a stupendous field of average 2850' (or whatever).